The respondent was seriously injured when she stepped through a snowbank created by the appellant municipality while clearing angled parking stalls, blocking access to the sidewalk.
The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the municipality's snow removal decisions were core policy decisions immune from negligence liability, and alternatively found no breach of standard of care and that the respondent was the proximate cause of her own injuries.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all three grounds.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that the city had not met its burden of proving core policy immunity and therefore owed the respondent a duty of care, while confirming that the standard of care and causation analyses were tainted by legal errors requiring a new trial.
The Court clarified the framework for distinguishing core policy decisions from operational government activities subject to negligence liability, identifying four relevant factors: the level and responsibilities of the decision-maker, the process by which the decision was made, the nature and extent of budgetary considerations, and the extent to which the decision was based on objective criteria.
